"The medical evidence indicates that your 'degenerative arthritis' is not a
consequential condition of the October 24, 2000 accepted injury, and we are
unable to accept this condition, ORS 656.005(7)(a)(A); we also are unable
to accept the 'degenerative arthritis' claim under ORS 656.005(7)(a)(B)."

Claimant requested a hearing on employer's denial of the arthritic condition. An
administrative law judge upheld the denial, as did the board.

It is undisputed that claimant's arthritis condition is work related. The
parties also appear to agree that the arthritis condition is a new medical condition.
Claimant sought to establish the compensability of the condition by proving that it was
caused in major part by the successive compensable injuries and surgeries and that
claimant's October 24, 2000, injury while GAB was on the risk independently contributed
to the condition. GAB argued to the board that, "[a]s postured, the matter was strictly a
dispute over whether GAB's notice of acceptance of the 2000 date of injury claim was
incomplete or inadequate." It asserted that the claim was not an initial claim for the
arthritis condition as an occupational disease but a request to accept the arthritis as a
consequence of the specific October 24, 2000, injury. Necessarily, GAB asserted, the
condition's compensability is dependent on its relationship to the October 24, 2000,
accepted injury.

Contrary to the board's reasoning, it makes no difference that the claim was
filed only against GAB. As we have held, a claimant may rely on the last injurious
exposure rule of proof to establish the compensability of a claim against a single
employer by showing that work conditions in general are the cause of the condition.
Bennett v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp., 128 Or App 71, 875 P2d 1176 (1994). To
establish the compensability of the degenerative knee condition as a consequential
condition under ORS 656.005(7)(a)(A), claimant was required to establish that "a
compensable work injury" was its major contributing cause. He was not required to
establish that the injury accepted by GAB was the major contributing cause of the
condition. The board's reading of the statute would require inserting after "a compensable
injury" the words "with the insurer against whom the claim is filed." We will not insert
into a statute what has been omitted. ORS 174.010; PGE v. Bureau of Labor and
Industries, 317 Or 606, 611, 859 P2d 1143 (1993). See SAIF v. Henwood

, 176 Or App
431, 31 P3d 1096 (2001). Claimant met his burden.

Contrary to employer's assertion, both Multifoods Specialty Distribution v.
McAtee, 333 Or 629, 43 P3d 1101 (2002), and SAIF v. Webb, 181 Or App 205, 45 P3d
950 (2002), are distinguishable. In Multifoods, the employer accepted a combined
condition involving a compensable injury and a preexisting degenerative condition. The
employer subsequently denied the combined condition after the compensable injury was
no longer the major contributing cause of the combined condition. The court said that the
claimant's preexisting degenerative condition had not been accepted outright but as a part
of a combined condition and that a combined condition is compensable only if the new
injury is the major contributing cause of the combined condition. Multifoods, 333 Or at
638. The court held that the employer's denial was consistent with ORS 656.262(6)(c),
which provided that an employer may deny a combined condition if the otherwise
compensable injury ceases to be the major contributing cause of the combined condition.
Id. This case does not involve an accepted combined condition.

Webb is also distinguishable. In that case, the claimant filed a claim for a
consequential condition after having suffered three successive injuries to his knee with
the same employer but three separate insurers. The three insurers were joined and
conceded the compensability of the claimant's consequential condition. The only issue
was responsibility. The insurers had issued responsibility denials. The evidence
established that the claimant's injury with SAIF was the major contributing cause of the
consequential condition. We said that, where one of three compensable injuries proved to
be the major contributing cause of the disputed condition, there was no need to apply the
last injurious exposure rule to determine responsibility for the consequential condition.
Webb, 181 Or App at 211-12. Here, in contrast, the only question is whether the
consequential condition is compensable. Claimant has established that it is.

"(a) After claim acceptance, written notice of acceptance or denial of
claims for aggravation or new medical conditions shall be furnished to the
claimant by the insurer or self-insured employer * * *. New medical condition
claims must clearly request formal written acceptance of the condition * * *. The
worker must clearly request formal written acceptance of any new medical
condition from the insurer or self-insured employer. The insurer or self-insured
employer is not required to accept each and every diagnosis or medical condition
with particularity, so long as the acceptance tendered reasonably apprises the
claimant and medical providers of the nature of the compensable conditions.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the worker may initiate a new
medical condition claim at any time.

"(b) Once a worker's claim has been accepted, the insurer or self-insured
employer must issue a written denial to the worker when the accepted injury is no
longer the major contributing cause of the worker's combined condition before the
claim may be closed.

"(c) * * * If a condition is found compensable after closure, the insurer or
self-insured employer shall reopen the claim for processing regarding that
condition."

"(a) Any insurer or self-insured employer who disputes responsibility for
a claim shall so indicate in or as part of a denial otherwise meeting the
requirements of ORS 656.262 issued in the 60 days allowed for processing of the
claim. The denial shall advise the worker to file separate, timely claims against
other potentially responsible insurers or self-insured employers, including other
insurers for the same employer, in order to protect the right to obtain benefits on
the claim. The denial may list the names and addresses of other insurers or
self-insured employers. Such denials shall be final unless the worker files a
timely request for hearing pursuant to ORS 656.319. All such requests for hearing
shall be consolidated into one proceeding."

"A 'compensable injury' is an accidental injury, or accidental injury to
prosthetic appliances, arising out of and in the course of employment requiring
medical services or resulting in disability or death; an injury is accidental if the
result is an accident, whether or not due to accidental means, if it is established by
medical evidence supported by objective findings, subject to the following
limitations:

"(A) No injury or disease is compensable as a consequence of a
compensable injury unless the compensable injury is the major contributing cause
of the consequential condition.

"(B) If an otherwise compensable injury combines at any time with a
preexisting condition to cause or prolong disability or a need for treatment, the
combined condition is compensable only if, so long as and to the extent that the
otherwise compensable injury is the major contributing cause of the disability or
the combined condition or the major contributing cause of the need for treatment
of the combined condition."